[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 214x216, 1243628667647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1255972 No.1255972 [Reply] [Original]

I believe God is real and I know a lot of you do too.

If he is not real how come every culture in the world has their idea of God? Maybe none of us have got it spot on, but he must be real.

And the idea of out of nothing something appeared, and then it exploded, is frankly, shit.

I think a lot of you just say you don't believe because that's how the majority act. I'm no zealot and I'm not going to try and convert you, but I think you need to realise what you already know.

>> No.1255986

>>1255972
Holy shit, that guy looks like my math prof.

>> No.1255990

>>1255972
argumentum ad ingrorantiam

>> No.1255992

This is the problem with you guys. Afraid to confront anything the internet can't solve for you.

>> No.1255993

>>1255990
More of an Ad Populum (spelling i know) argument isnt it?

>> No.1255999

>>1255972
>>1255990
also... reverse argumentum ad populum
>>think a lot of you just say you don't believe because that's how the majority act

>> No.1256000

>>1255992
>>1255972
finally. I don't even feel like trolling anymore.

>> No.1256002

>>1255990
>ingrorantiam
Try ignorantiam idiot.

>> No.1256004

>>1255972
You don't know anything.
As a race, we know nothing at all.
All our "facts" could be wrong.
An Alien race could come to Earth, and teach us completely new way to look at every single thing in a different way and maybe it would make more sense or better for us.
Now imagine that Alien race is just people from a different country, and their different view on everything is really their religion. It's like that, but hundreds of times over. I really don't give a shit if i'm going to hell or heaven forever. I'd think hell would be better, being constantly tortured forever and dying. Eventually pain will be your fetish and you won't mind the heat and you'd just find it erotic. Heaven would be amazing orgasmic for the first few millenia but then it's just repeating over and over.

>> No.1256005

>If he is not real how come every culture in the world has their idea of God?

We all have a mother complex

>> No.1256006

There are evolutionary reasons for the human species as a whole being superstitious and attributing things to unknown or mystical forces.

I would go into them, but this is just a cleverly disguised troll.

>> No.1256007

>>1255972
> If he is not real how come every culture in the world has their idea of God?
Because they're all made up. That's why they can all make them up.

>> No.1256009

>>1256004
you are delusional, please go to >>>/x/

>> No.1256010

>>1256007
All come up with the exact same idea? Yeah, no.

>> No.1256016

>>1255999
>>1255993
>>1255990

logical fallacies aren't automatically invalid assertions you know?

>> No.1256021

>>1256009
How do you know this? You science faggots think you have everything figured out, you base one theory on another and then decide you know it all.
>Some crazy german said it half a century ago so it must be true!
You criticise religious people for the same thing.


We as a species have achieved nothing but ruining our home.

>> No.1256027

If every culture in the world was right about god/gods, why does every single one have a different idea of what god/gods is?

>> No.1256028

>>1256010
They didn't come up with the exact same idea, though. THAT would have been something.

>> No.1256034

>>1256027
Look at the similiarities. There are A LOT.

>> No.1256035

>>1256021
>We as a species have achieved nothing but ruining our home.
you should kill yourself.

>> No.1256039

>And the idea of out of nothing something appeared, and then it exploded, is frankly, shit.

You're doing it wrong. We observe the universe is expanding. We run the movie backwards and consider how small and hot it was earlier.

But you introduced *your* concepts of "nothing" and "before" the big bang. This is where *your* ideas are, frankly, shit.

>> No.1256043

>>1256021
we don't know it all, but I do know that all religions are false

>> No.1256045

>>1256039
So before the big bang? And before that? And before that? And before that?....

>> No.1256047

>>1256034
The only similarity is the human desire to not die, so you convince yourself that when you do die you get to live in cloud city forever.

>> No.1256051

>>1256045
so before creation? and before that? and before that?

at least science has the balls to say that we don't have all the answers

>> No.1256062

The idea of a god is silly. It's a child's excuse and it's also an excuse TO DESTROY.

>> No.1256068

AT LEAST SAGE IF YOU'RE GOING TO REPLY TO THIS TROLL.

Also, does it make more sense to believe that, prior to our Big Bang, there was some other universe or something, or that it simply popped into existence?

Or does it make more sense to think that some sky wizard did it? What created this sky wizard? Etc etc.

I think that the former makes a bit more sense. At the very least, it is illogical to assume that some extra-dimensional thing caused it without evidence.

>> No.1256074

>>1256068
Goddamit. I forgot to sage that time.

Now I feel like an idiot.

>> No.1256077

>>1256045
That's asking, "What happened before time?". Those *questions* make no sense.

>> No.1256085

>>1256062
how so? the brain is engineered to fathom these things. ops quandaries are not unfounded

>> No.1256102

In an atheist world, the laws of logic can only be subjective, thus rendering all arguments from the atheist perspective moot. In the end, theists always win.

>> No.1256120

sage

>> No.1256124

>>1256102
No, the laws of LOGIC are considered by at least a large fraction of atheists to be objective, like most math.

Laws of physics/chemistry? Possibly subjective, though seemingly objective.

>> No.1256125

>>1256102
>In the end, nobody wins.
FTFY

also, shame on you for choosing blind faith over logic and reason, if there is a god and that is what he asks of me, i would rather deny his existence

>> No.1256137

>>1256068
it is illogical to assume that a brain evolved to perceive physical matter can fathom pre existence

>> No.1256157

>>1256125
I choose logic and reason. There's no blind faith here.
Isaiah 1:18 says "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord.

>> No.1256166

>>1256124
consensus is mass subjectivism


An ANT on a tire cannot contemplate a CAR.


WE have the ability to comprehend beyond the confines of persistent matter and repeatable, provable theories.

I love conjecture

>> No.1256167

>>1256125
If there is a god who asks me to reject logic and reason, I wouldn't deny his existence. That would be unreasonable, so he wins. He's there, and he asked me stuff. But I would flip him the bird.

>> No.1256185
File: 248 KB, 840x1600, 1267062979999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256185

/thread

>> No.1256201
File: 119 KB, 560x4696, 1274841687937.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256201

>> No.1256209

If you replied to this thread you got trolled.

>> No.1256210

>If he is not real how come every culture in the world has their idea of God? Maybe none of us have got it spot on, but he must be real.

This does not mean a God is real. This only means that humans are curious and demand explanations for their existance. Theirr demands lead to stories around the world about magical men and gods who created shit. Thus "God"


Umm the big bang can be summarized with.
"researchonthebigbangbeforeyoucomeheresayingitsalie"

You need to really try harder if you want to convert me. Maybe, with actual facts..

>> No.1256238

>>1256201
That doesn't prove shit. You can't DISPROVE that there isn't a little teapot floating around the world so that means it exists? This logic makes no sense at all and all who keep it close should rid themselves for the good of humanity.

>> No.1256249

>>1256238
Way to PROVE that you didn't actually read the comic.

>> No.1256267
File: 408 KB, 560x4696, temp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256267

>>1256201

>> No.1256268

>>1256209
I troll for Jesus
I get trolled for Jesus

amen

>> No.1256271
File: 61 KB, 600x600, cp1918_600px-Wtf_am_i_reading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256271

>>1256201
>>1256201
>Religionists have as much right to believe as you do not to believe.

Yeah, and people who believe in Santa Claus have as much right to believe as you do not to believe.

Also, where are these boxes that I can look into to see if there's a god or not?

>> No.1256279

Sure is 15 year old atheist in here. I say this as an atheist myself. You can tell the underaged ones by their incessant need to flaunt their stupidity in the presence of religionists.

>> No.1256282
File: 66 KB, 802x602, 1266047787499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256282

>>1256249
I did read the comic, it was a bunch of blabber that I have already heard. There is the possibility that there is a cat in a box that is also invisible and we have the ability to find the cat in the box. It is utterly false on all means and you can use the Russels Tea Pot quote to counter that argument as there is no proof of the box or the cats existance in the first place AND we already have good evidence for a evolutionary beginning anyways so it kind of shits on the Christian god.

>> No.1256283

>>1256201
Except you know... there was some scientific theories backing up this electromagnetic spectrum from the very beginning

>> No.1256288

>>1256238
Did you actually read it? It isn't trying to prove anything. What it's saying is "Judging another person because of their beliefs - or lack thereof - proves only that you are a fool."
Atheists have become what they used to hate most. I can't count the number of times I've heard atheists whine about how some Christian tried to convert them. Now atheists do the same thing.

>> No.1256291

21st century HU man think he is advanced.

laughingalienoverlords.3dgif

>> No.1256297

>>1256279
>flaunt
>stupidity
You say you are an atheist in the beginning and then you say that their arguments are stupid.
>Something isn't right here.

>> No.1256300

>>1256282
YOU CAN'T USE THE TEAPOT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE COMIC WASN'T ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD YOU STUPID FAGGOT.

All major atheists agree that strong atheism is a logically untenable position. Only 13 year olds think otherwise.

>> No.1256302

I don't know what you define as "God", but there is some.. thing, probably incomprehensible to us in every definition, that created all knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Whether or not it was on purpose, or just some accident, who knows. We'll sure as hell never figure it out.

>> No.1256303

>>1256288
I thought atheists hated the thought of blind faith in a god the most. I don't understand what you're saying.

>> No.1256309

>>1256288
If you believe things with no evidence, it makes you irrational. That's not a snap judgment or an opinion, it's a matter of fact from the definition of rational. So yes, it does matter. You are entitled to it if you like. But to claim you know there's a cat in one of the boxes is a lie unless you put it there or have the cat.

>> No.1256311

>>1256267
That comic is proagnosticism.

>> No.1256314

>>1255972
>And the idea of out of nothing something appeared, and then it exploded, is frankly, shit.

Watch this entire video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.1256318

>>1256279
Sure is 15 year old theist in here. I say this as & theist myself. You can tell the underaged ones by their incessant need to flaunt their stupidity in the presence of atheists, confirming their biases.

>> No.1256319

>>1256309
I don't believe in things with no evidence. Perhaps some Christians do, but a lot of atheists take it for granted, without studying the subject themselves, that the big bang occurred.

>> No.1256320

>>1256311
Yes it is. Agnostic atheism to be precise. I could rewrite it to be agnostic theist too.
"So until we've checked all the boxes, it's not irrational to believe there might be a cat."

>> No.1256324

>>1255972
Then all this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxxbXgo7IVw&feature=related

>> No.1256333

Sure is 15 year old retard in here. I say this as a 15 year old retard myself. You can tell the underaged ones from their incessant need to flaunt their retardation in front of the non-retarded.

>> No.1256340

>>1256320
The comic sucks

>> No.1256341

Proof there's no god: I try to do an original troll and people stop paying attention after a few posts, but when someone mentions faith, the thread stays at the top of the board past 100 posts.

>> No.1256347

>>1256300
The argument was arguing the possibility of existance which goes along with the possibility of a floating teapot. derpity derpt
>get outta here.

>> No.1256355

>>1256341
You were the fag who posted the "hurr I am can do anything god can do" thread weren't you?

>> No.1256361

>>1256355
umad

>> No.1256365

>>1256361
Ipad

>> No.1256368

OP, I don't really give enough of a fuck to even CARE, and I know that many anons here on 4chan feel that same way. This method of trolling is WAY PAST it's expiration date. At LEAST find something new to troll with, k?

>> No.1256375

I do not believe in God. God cannot exist. All science and logic says that he cannot exist. Xtians are wrong, science is right.

>> No.1256377

>>1256319
>take the big bang for granted

This is also stupid. It is currently the most accurate theory known based on existing evidence, but to presume it positively proven demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of science.

>> No.1256389
File: 48 KB, 419x919, 1276142382565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256389

Stop rising to the troll posts guys.


Christfags need to argue why they are not crazy, zombie worshiping fanatics with a twisted sense or morality.


The default position of reality is the scientific one. You need to explain why it doesn't apply to this one section of understanding.

>> No.1256390
File: 793 KB, 1076x4082, atheistapocalypse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256390

This is what atheists actually believe

>> No.1256402

>>1256377
I'm just saying, people on both sides have a certain amount of blind faith. They believe in things they have no real knowledge of themselves, going on the word and expertise of those around them.
I can't speak for every Christian, but I myself have at least tried to look into some of the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. Using my own reason and logic, based on the things I've studied, I've come to the conclusion that there is a God. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

>> No.1256410

>>1256389
Problem: Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25.

>> No.1256414 [DELETED] 

>>1256389

>> No.1256420

>>1256389
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/zeitgeist-refuted/

>> No.1256421

>>1256402

The error you are making is in the presumption that there are two sides.

>> No.1256422

>>1256361
umid bz mbook

>> No.1256426

Science may be able to disprove some if not all religions but it could never disprove a God. Period, end of discussion, over, no more words needed, no more anything, thats it.

>> No.1256431
File: 33 KB, 437x388, evolution of superstition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256431

God is for retards. I'm sorry OP but you are pretty fucking stupid go kill yourself k thanks bye!

>> No.1256433

>>1256421
How is that an error?

>> No.1256436

>>1256402
because so far, us atheists haven't really found a rational or logical way to come to the conclusion that there is a god

funny I know

>> No.1256438
File: 10 KB, 363x323, christiandarkages.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256438

I am surprised how many theists are here on /sci/ of all places, considering how harmful theism has been to scientific progress worldwide.

>> No.1256443

>>1256368
>many anons here on 4chan feel that same way.

sure is cannot logic in herpa derpa

>> No.1256450

OK homosexuals, religion is not the reason your parents hate you. They hate you because you are gay and want to go into biology instead of a good field like engineering or law. Stop blaming religion for your lifestyle choices.

>> No.1256454

>>1256426
according to this guy's argument:
>>1256201
sure they could

>> No.1256455

>>1256433
It's incorrect, but you base views and arguments on it.

inb4 "like some other things"

>> No.1256469

>>1256438
>scientific advancement as a graph

lol, no.

>> No.1256475

>>1256438
Is that image meant to imply that every advancement following the dark ages was made by non-Christians?
The fall of the Roman Empire wasn't even close to being the fault of Christians.
That picture is just silly. What exactly is "Scientific Advancement" and is that accounting for the entire world or just Europe and Egypt?

>> No.1256490

>>1256410
also it's the winter solstice, which is why religions focus on dates at that time.

>> No.1256498

>>1256201

Fucking idiot, the electromagnetic spectrum includes visible light hurr durr

>> No.1256504

>>1256490
That;s wha the government elites want you to think faggot

>> No.1256507

>>1256436
And why would atheists try to prove that God exists? How many Christian apologists have you found trying to prove that God doesn't exist?
Atheists aren't very good at explaining anything. They can't even account for the existence of objective laws of logic.
Check out Greg Bahnsen and the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.

>> No.1256514

>>1256454
im fine with saying we dont know as of yet. But even if we figured out everything there still could be a God. I get what the guy is saying, maybe someday we will have the answers as to how the universe started but you could never disprove a God, God will always be a possibility. Period.

>> No.1256519

>>1256455
So you're saying that all atheists have full knowledge of things like the big bang, evolution, etc?

>> No.1256524

>>1256475
Christianity was not the cause of the dark ages. Christianity did extend the dark ages though with the Popes opression of Christianity and such.

>> No.1256530

>>1256507
Theists aren't very good at explaining anything either. Check out Gregory Dawes's book "Theism and Explanation." The "laws of logic" are necessary truths.

>> No.1256533

>>1256433

Atheism isn't a side, it's just a lack of religious belief.
It means absolutely nothing else beyond that.

Attributing blind faith or other traits to a nebulous "Them" is fallacious. Other views atheists hold, even if stupid or anti-religious, are not caused by their atheism.

>>1256507

You seem to be confusing atheist with anti-theist. While the latter do exist, they are not the same thing.

>> No.1256534

>>1256455
I never said that there are only two sides, but I don't see any Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus in this thread.

>> No.1256539

>>1256519
I have no idea where you drew that conclusion from, but then presumptuous leaps of faith are your forte.

>>1256534
PROTIP: Atheism isn't a side at all.

>> No.1256542
File: 10 KB, 280x285, bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256542

If god exists, I hope he will swallow my cum

>> No.1256545

>>1256524
I'm no fan of Catholicism but the fact of the matter is that the Catholic church was responsible for a lot of the advances in literacy and technology that brought Europe out of the dark ages. Thereafter, Christianity flourished, Europe enjoyed the Renaissance, and so on and so forth.

>> No.1256553

>>1256507
you kind of missed my point.

you're the one who came to the conclusion that there is a god through what you said was your own 'reason and logic'. not one person has ever even come close to that conclusion through 'reason and logic'. please explain the reasoning that made you come to your conclusion and watch all of /sci/ debunk every last point. go on.

>> No.1256554

>>1256539
Right. Atheism is the truth. Theists have the false doctrine. We atheists have science and all of its proud accomplishments. All theists have is the pain and suffering caused by all religions throughout the history of mankind. Fuck them and their likeminded ideologies (capitalism, bourgeoisie democracy, etc.)

>> No.1256556

>>1256533
You'll have to forgive my generalization, but that doesn't really amount to a refutation of my argument.

>> No.1256558

/v/ here, sup /rlg/

>> No.1256567

>>1256553
So you have intimate knowledge of every single person who has ever come to the conclusion that God exists?

>> No.1256584

>>1256556
That's cool, you haven't shown us any of this reason and logic of yours either.

Probably because it's completely antithetical to faith and utterly silly to combine the two.

If it could be reasoned, and the reason were sound, it would cease being a matter of faith.

>> No.1256594

>>1256584
You haven't shown me how the atheist worldview can account for the existence of objective laws of logic.

>> No.1256595

>>1256567
no I don't. Though I can tell you right now that it's impossible to come to a rational and logical assumption that god exists. there's no way that god will ever be proven to exist. not by atheists, not by theists. this goes into a more of an absurdist argument, but you can look that up on your spare time

>> No.1256599

>>1256556

No, demonstrating that it is a fallacy refutes it quite succinctly.

Pretending otherwise will not change that.

>> No.1256603

>>1256595
So you have intimate knowledge of every method, every line of reasoning, every argument which has ever or will ever be presented in favor of the existence of God?

>> No.1256612

>>1256594
How does your worldview account for the existence of its god?

>> No.1256614
File: 33 KB, 468x461, 20070514.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256614

No. There is no reason to assume the basis of reality is controlled by a magic invisible wizard.

Not without evidence. Harry Potter does not exist until we find him. Santa Claus does not exist until we find him. God does not exist until we find him.

>> No.1256616

>>1256594

That was never a criterion. I'm not even sure why you feel it relevant.

>> No.1256623

>>1256599
I wasn't even dealing with anti-theists. I don't know about you, but I don't see what's fallacious about asking how many atheists have tried to prove that God exists.

>> No.1256633

Science pre-20th century: Relativity does not exist (despite actually existing)

Science now: God does not exist (take a guess?)

>> No.1256635

>>1256623

I wasn't even talking about that.

That poster is going somewhere else entirely.

>> No.1256639

>>1256599
logical fallacies are sometimes correct assertions. I thought this was common knowledge. Why do you think politicians employ them so often.


>>1256594
finally

>> No.1256641

>>1256616
You're placing all your faith in logic and reason, so tell me how these things can exist.

>> No.1256646

>>1256633
not really

>> No.1256648

>>1256633
actually you have that God thing backwards

Science now: God does exist (take a guess?)

>> No.1256649

>>1256633
>Science now: Unicorns do not exist (take a guess?)

How can you believe in god if it's just a theory (a guess)

>> No.1256650

>>1256635
Oh, my bad. What's the fallacy then? I'd like a chance to address it if I may.

>> No.1256653

>>1256639
>Why do you think politicians employ them so often.
wtf? because rhetoric is used to convince people of something, are you even trying to think?

>> No.1256655
File: 72 KB, 747x599, 1274227907985.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256655

>>1256603
YOU'RE KILLIN ME MAN.
the methods to prove the existence of any type of entity are out of our reach completely. and to make you happy, then yes, i do not know factually all the intimate arguments you speak of, but I know that none of them will ever be able to favor the conclusion that god exists because it is simply impossible to prove. try it I dare you

>> No.1256656

>>1256641

Logic and reason are useful tools to be sure, but I don't take them on faith.

You keep making presumptions that make it impossible for you to carry an argument, and you seem to be confusing several anons for each other.

>> No.1256661

>>1256614
straw man, ad adbsurdum

>> No.1256671

>>1256641
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>> No.1256673

>>1256655
How can you possibly know that "none of them will ever be able to favor the conclusion that god exists because it is simply impossible to prove."

>> No.1256687

>>1256656
Ok, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that there are objective laws of logic or do you believe that logic is a subjective construct of the human mind?

>> No.1256696

>>1256687
>>1256687
>>1256687

Hey, fucker, you never answered my question:
>>1256612

>> No.1256698

>>1256653
no im talkinga bout the specific fallacies like ad populum that are not 100% valid but quite often reflective of some consistent fact. The same can be applied to many other fallacies that you 15yr olds are so adept at pointing out

>> No.1256699

>>1256673
insert any impossible manifestation here
>How can you possibly know that "none of them will ever be able to favor the conclusion that _____ exists because it is simply impossible to prove."

>> No.1256709

>>1256699
Are you claiming that God is impossible?

>> No.1256712

>>1256673
immediately possible

all logic is consensus subjectivism

>> No.1256719

>>1256712
If logic is subjective then there is a God and there isn't a God. If logic is subjective, 1+1=2 and 1+1=56.

>> No.1256723

>>1256650

The fallacies were the attribution of traits and beliefs to atheism when they fall entirely outside its scope, and its placement in opposition to theistic beliefs when it is in fact anti-theism that would be so.

I don't care the slightest about the rest of the argument, but as an agnostic atheist if you're going to baselessly attribute views to me that I do not hold then you can kindly fuck off.

>> No.1256726

>>1256673
because it is simply beyond our reach as humans. how can you say that there will be someone who will find a means of proving this sort of god with the assumptions we make? if you're talking some sort of quantum physics concept based argument saying that there technically has to be a god in some alternate universe or reality, then fine, technically there has to be but i'm talking this universe based.

besides, the assumptions on this argument are very vague as we have not defined what the god is which i am partly responsible for

>> No.1256731

>>1256709
>The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

>> No.1256732

>>1256723
I don't know you or any of the atheists or variations thereupon in this thread, so unless we all want to make detailed introductions, we're kind of forced to generalize to an extent. Deal with it.

>> No.1256733

>>1255969
RＥmoeV YＵＯｒ_ｉLｌgEＡL ＣＬｏEｎ ｆＯ_HttP://WwＷ.ａnoMnｏMtＡＬＫ.Ｓｅ/ (AnｏＭnｏM = ＡNoN)_ｉmＭＥIＤＡtＥLy. aim if ckjqnq lmdnukao vg br pciw nr px xn i rihypf

>> No.1256736

>>1256726
How do you know that it is beyond our reach as humans?

>> No.1256741

>>1256719
And for your questioning about "Why are there objective laws of logic", if you're going to say that God created those laws, then they are subjective. God can change them so that 1+1=56

>> No.1256744

>>1256732
>I don't know you or any of the atheists or variations

That's the key problem, really.

The other is that atheism is a thing so specific and of such narrow scope that generalization is utterly pointless.

You may as well be generalizing about people who like the color blue.

>> No.1256749

>>1256741
Does the character of God have anything to do with the existence of God?

>> No.1256758

>>1256736
this >>1256731

>> No.1256771

>>1256744
If you don't want people to assume things about you, you'd do well to lay out all details of your personal beliefs beforehand so that anyone can see them and know exactly how to talk to you.
Atheism really isn't very specific. As some in this thread have said, atheism is lack of a belief in a god. That's pretty general, and may include non-belief in the Christian God, the Norse pantheon, the deities of Hinduism, etc.

>> No.1256772

>>1256744
your logic is like ninja - hard to follow

>> No.1256778

>>1256771
Are you serious? It's a lack of belief in ALL gods.

Basically, all the ones you disbelieve in, plus 1.

>> No.1256781
File: 28 KB, 736x737, awesome deadpan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1256781

>>1256771
>doesn't believe in theism
>one single trait
>not very specific

>> No.1256786

>>1256758
I have not committed argumentum ad ignorantiam. I asked a simple question. I'm not responsible for any implication you read into my question.

>> No.1256792

>>1256778
I've heard different atheists define atheism differently.

>> No.1256799

>objective laws of logic

what is this i don't even

If that's not a question made in bad faith I don't know what is.

>> No.1256813

>>1256792
We've got dictionaries for that sort of thing.
Unless you were hoping for a semantic argument of course, but those are for faggots.

>> No.1256830

>>1256786
OK, before I pursue this any longer can I ask for your religious beliefs? (don't worry this has a purpose)

>> No.1256836

>>1256813
Well, I said that an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. Is this incorrect?

>> No.1256844

>>1256830
I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Old and New Testament. If you ask me more specific questions regarding my beliefs I'll try to give you more specific answers.

>> No.1256853

>>1256844
Alright then. Why do you believe in the god you said you believed in?

>> No.1256856

>>1256836

Defending the wrong target.

>I've heard different atheists define atheism differently.

This is irrelevant.
Additionally those may not have actually been atheists if they are redefining the term for themselves.

>> No.1256858

>>1256853
The impossibility of the contrary.

>> No.1256868

>>1256858
ok. What is the contrary and why is it impossible?

>> No.1256874

>>1256856
You replied to my reply to someone else.

Anyway, is my definition of atheism wrong or not?

>> No.1256892

>>1256868
The contrary is the non-existence of the aforementioned God. The atheist worldview cannot account for objective laws of logic, mathematics, the uniformity of nature, etc.

>> No.1256901

>>1256844
Why the Christian god though?
You cannot account for the existence of your god.
Also the god of the bible is demonstrably fictitious:
http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-03192004-135203/

>> No.1256905

>>1256892
and your alternative? god created them all? my next line of inquiry is obvious.

>> No.1256907

>>1256874

You're fishing for affirmation again. Interesting.

The definition is correct, but not relevant to the anecdote you answered >>1256778 with.

>> No.1256912

>>1256892
>objective laws of logic, mathematics

You've yet to explain what accounting for these even accomplishes or why it's required. They're just tools, albeit very refined and successful ones.

>the uniformity of nature

Because it isn't...?

>> No.1256913

>And the idea of out of nothing something appeared, and then it exploded, is frankly, shit.
So a magical sky being that made everything poof out of nowhere yet had no cause for itself is your logical alternative?
lololololol.

If you have no knowledge of quantum physics, you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the Big Bang and how you think it's a crock of shit.

>> No.1256921

I don't belive in gods and I know a lot of you don't either.

If they are real how come every culture in the world has its own idea of them? Maybe there is some sense in those contradictory myths, but they can't be real.

And the idea of out of mysterious something everything appeared, and then this something talked, is frankly, shit.

I think a lot of you just say you believe because that's how the majority act. I'm no savant and I'm not going to try and educate you, but I think you need to realise what you already know.

>> No.1256923

ITT: argument from majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Inductive_arguments

>> No.1256924

>>1256907
Why do you care so much? It had nothing to do with you, I simply responded to him since he seemed to take issue with my definition of atheism.

>> No.1256926

>>1256892
>mathematics
not who you're talking to, but don't you dare use my math as a proof for your bullshit, it may be used as an opinion for theism (symmetry of universe etc.), but it is NOT ACCEPTABLE as an argument for a RELIGION

>> No.1256929

I love how theists talk about the "uniformity of nature" despite believing that there is an omnipotent supernatural being with inscrutable motives who can violate nature at will, and occasionally does things like flooding the world, or coming down to Bronze Age Palestine to live as a magical hippy.

>> No.1256934

>man doesn't know where he comes from or why he exists
>fears death more than anything
>creates God and Heaven to satiate the unknown.

>> No.1256935

>>1256924

You became evasive and just skimming through this thread I noticed a pattern in your behavior. It begged further investigation.

>> No.1256937

>>1256912
I'm curious to know how nature isn't uniform. I've never heard that one before.

Do you believe that you can prove anything at all without logic, math or science?

>> No.1256942

>>1256844
How about something simple. As I understand it, most Judeo-Christians believe that the bible is the word of god, while simultaneously rejecting any such claim made by any other religion (that has come before or after) about their holy text.

How can/do you rationalize this?

>> No.1256948

>>1256926
Was I arguing for religion?

>> No.1256953

>>1256937
You claimed that it is and provided no evidence. That's the end of it right there, but if you want to know about the existing evidence to the contrary you can start with some quantum mechanics.

>> No.1256954

>>1256942
What does that have to do with the existence of God?

>> No.1256960

>>1256948
You were asked why you believed in the god you said you believed in. Not why you believed in a god in general.

>> No.1256961

>>1256953
Walk outside, look around, tell me how uniform nature isn't.

>> No.1256970

>>1256937
If nature were uniform matter wouldn't exist...

>> No.1256985

>>1256961

So you have no evidence, then.

That doesn't even make good rhetoric.

>> No.1256988

>>1256954
It doesn't, its an argument for why religions are full of shit. My argument is that if god exists, he is almost certainly not jesus or allah or vishnu or anybody else.

My problem with religion, not theism.

Also, may not be the person you started the argument with.

>> No.1256992

>>1256970
How do you figure that?
>>1256960
I'm arguing in favor of the existence of God. I'm not trying to convince you that you should get on your knees and pray or go to church.

>> No.1257002

>>1256988
I'm not arguing about religion.

>> No.1257012

>>1256985
The uniformity of nature is self-evident. When's the last time fire was cold instead of hot or gravity repelled instead of attracted?

>> No.1257020

>>1256992
The universe ceases being uniform if stuff clumps together to form atoms and planets.

Unless you mean something else entirely, in which case you mean something else entirely. Perhaps you meant consistent?

>> No.1257025

>>1255972
because all are human
human want knowledge and see pattarn
if no make sense environment, placeholder come to life
god always humanoid, maker of things, cause we know WE make things
so what we not know, unknown maker did

but then we learn really is the reason and we stop, if we smart

or else no electricity if it Thor in a box not we generate are able to but if we do know how to generate we cannot make god his name of it
because we know truth so it is science and not god

science is that what god is not needed for since god is stub function in c++ or unknown variable in equation to make things work temporarily

>> No.1257026

>>1257012
>When's the last time fire was cold

A wood fire is below ambient temperature on Venus.

>> No.1257038

>>1257020
Consistent is one of the definitions of uniform.

>> No.1257040

>>1257026
Whoa, really? I honestly had no idea, that's really cool!

>> No.1257044

>>1257002
Your arguments amount to nothing but truism. Have you ever heard of the anthropic principal? Related to how people say "Isn't it an amazing coincidence that our planet is in the perfect spot in the solar system with the perfect atmosphere to sustain life". The reality is, the laws of physics and the necessary things for our existence are only so because we are able to observe their existence. Meaning, if they were anything other than what they are, we wouldn't be able to ask that question.

Imagine an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of laws of physics. Suppose only 100 such universes were able to create sentient life, EVERY single sentience would observe that their universe has been created in the perfect manner for it to sustain their form of life. The point being, IF there is sentient life capable observing the laws of physics, THEN they will observe that the universe is specially tailored for them. This will ALWAYS be an observation that is made!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>> No.1257061

>>1257044
So you're saying that the universe exists because we can observe it?

>> No.1257068

>>1257044
By comparison:
A man creates a webpage. He wants to know what percentage of his visitors use javascript. So he writes out a little counter to count how many people have javascript. But he writes it in javascript.
SURPRISE, the javascript counter thinks everyone is using javascript!

>> No.1257074

>>1257061
I'm saying whatever perfection for life that exists in the universe MUST exist for us to exist, if the perfection didn't exist then WE wouldn't exist to observe the universes lack of perfection.

>> No.1257075

>>1257074
I agree.

>> No.1257077

>>1257012

You mean the laws that govern the universe are consistent.

That means only that our understanding of them is consistent with observation.

Except when it's not.

You've sort of planted a land mine and then stepped on it yourself.

The laws of the universe are only consistent in so far as we understand them through reason and logic.

You are using this as the foundation of your argument, which is ironic because not only are you making a leap of faith anyway ("It can't be explained, therefore I can explain it"), but the foundation of your is based on the very things you reject as inadequate for building such a foundation.

The thing is, we discover inconsistencies all the time (quantum mechanics broke gravity, btw) because we observe new things. This doesn't break logic or math thankfully because those two things are separate and internally consistent tools.

It can break theories though, which is fine because the ones we have now are too restrictive and we welcome the refining process.

>>1257038

It's also misleading when consistent is the more accurate and appropriate term to use. Perhaps even intentionally, but that would be difficult to prove and doesn't really need to be.

>> No.1257091

Basically it comes down to the fact that if you truly believe you exist, then you believe in god. Otherwise your just a well organized group of energy clusters responding in an unknown predictable pattern with no real purpose.

>> No.1257093

>>1257077
I never used the uniformity of nature as the basis for my argument. It was one of a couple of things I mentioned. One of you guys latched onto it and I continued to reply.

You've got this problem with my use of the term uniform, but earlier you told me that semantic arguments are for faggots.

>> No.1257115

>>1257093

I said no such thing, but I agree with the sentiment.

Accuracy is key to a clear argument.

Arguing semantics in order to be less accurate or change a definition to suit your purposes and open wiggle room in a floundering argument is unacceptable conduct. Being initially ambiguous with the same intention is likewise poor form.

I get the impression that you know full well what you were doing, and I pity you for that.

>> No.1257119

>>1257093
The other point about logic being objective is just an opinion.

And mathematics is just a way to describe the universe, which is again the same thing as the whole uniformity stuff.

>> No.1257129 [DELETED] 

If you were a true christian you would kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

>> No.1257133

>>1257115
Oh, ok, well someone with a blue name did. Sorry about that, but you agree anyway, so whatever.
I used the word uniformity and I think that's accurate. If you want to use a synonym and then take issue with me, that's fine. It's not really getting us anywhere.

>> No.1257144

>>1257119
So would you say that logic is subjective then?

>> No.1257164

>>1257133
I actually think either would have been inaccurate given how ambiguous the statement was. "consistency of the universe" vs "uniformity of the universe" when you actually meant something more specific.

Unfortunately for the argument you were making that means >>1257115 is correct, because the uniformity breaks all the time and is itself subjective.

Also "blue name" because I'm saging my posts to avoid bumping the thread as it is both off-topic and against board rules.

>> No.1257193

>>1257164
I don't know what problem you're having with my stating that nature exhibits uniformity. As far as I'm aware, matter behaves the same anyplace you go. I'd call that uniformity. The uniformity of nature, or the principle of uniformity is a common topic, there's even a Wikipedia entry about it.

>> No.1257194

>>1257144
I would say any attempt by logic to prove one or the other would be circular. Like I said, an opinion.

>> No.1257222

>>1257144
yes it is. logic is subjective

>> No.1257223

>>1257194
Well, does logic exist or not?

>> No.1257231

>>1257222
Congratulations, you've invalidated all of your own arguments.

>> No.1257240

>>1257091
>Believe you exist
>Believe there is a god.

>> No.1257243

>>1257231
You've been fishing for that response this entire thread, which is curious because it's irrelevant and invalidates nothing.

>> No.1257262

>>1257243
Well if we're each going to stipulate our own logic, how are we ever going to come to a rational conclusion?
You're wrong. If you or he honestly believes that each of us can simply decide our own logic, then all of our arguments are meaningless and you can't even justify why you're taking part in this conversation.

>> No.1257276

>>1257231
Ah I see...

objective logic -> god exists
subjective logic -> nothing is true

I bet you could make it into the olympics with those kind of leaps.

>> No.1257283

>>1257276
If your worldview can't account for anything, why believe in it?

>> No.1257291

>>1257093
This exchange with another anon suggests otherwise:

>>1256830
>>1256844
>>1256853
>>1256858
>>1256868
>>1256892

(presumably the same anon, the tone and writing style match the same line of questioning)

>reason, logic and math are subjective therefore they cannot explain the objective uniformity of the universe

Except, y'know, the universe only appears uniform as a result of our understanding through reason, logic and math. This subjective uniformity also breaks all the time because we just can't leave well enough alone.

The very fact that you even attempted to reason out a matter of faith demonstrates that you understand neither reason nor logic. Math's up in the air though, you might actually be good at it.

But more importantly, if you're going to blatantly lie to us then you can continue your argument with your invisible friend.

>> No.1257300

This topic is proof /sci/ are full of trolled retards

>> No.1257306

>>1257283

I think you just invalidated your own argument.

>> No.1257307
File: 36 KB, 300x441, successfultrollissuccesa[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1257307

>>1255972
>205 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
Well done /sci/

pic related

>> No.1257314

>>1257291
"reason, logic and math are subjective therefore they cannot explain the objective uniformity of the universe"

Please show me exactly where I said this. I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I did say "The atheist worldview cannot account for objective laws of logic, mathematics, the uniformity of nature, etc."

>> No.1257317

>>1257262
Sight is subjective, yet those among us that are capable of sight will agree on many things that are not meaningless.

>>1257283
A belief should not be one of convenience.

>> No.1257330

>>1257091
just because you say you exist it doesn't mean that there is a god. sure we may be "well organized group of energy clusters responding in an unknown predictable pattern with no real purpose" but the step two to that doesn't automatically mean that there was is a god. there's no evidence for that what so ever

>> No.1257340

>>1257314
>presumption that objective logic needs to exist
>claims the universe is uniform and this must be accounted for
>attempts to support claim without objective logic

You're not very good at this logic thing, are you?

>> No.1257349

>>1257340
Which logic, yours or mine?

>> No.1257351

>>1257314

Right here: >>1257314

I'd like to thank that guy for paraphrasing it so succinctly.

>> No.1257356

>>1257349

Logical form. I don't know what exactly it is that you're doing, but as it keeps leading to fallacies it is not logic.

>> No.1257358

>>1257356
Oh, so logic is objective now.

>> No.1257363

>>1257358
>objective
I don't think this means what you think it means.

>> No.1257372

>>1257358

Nice try (actually no that was weaksauce, but I'm being nice).

It's internally consistent, and I strongly urge you to take a course on it before you embarrass yourself further.

>> No.1257371

>>1257363
Existing independent of the human mind. Objective.

>> No.1257376

>>1257373
Yeah, you don't know what objective means.

>> No.1257373

>>1257372
Well one of you fellows told me that logic was subjective, and now one of you is telling me that I can't stipulate my own logic.

>> No.1257380

>>1257376
Really? See: >>1257371
Then look it up in a dictionary. I did and I'm correct.

>> No.1257390

Bedtime for Novemberg. Hope y'all have a nice night/day. Take care.

>> No.1257392

>>1257373
Funny thing about communication is that the entire population can have the same system that is both internally consistent and subjective.

>>1257380
If you were as clever as you put on you'd have learned by now that arguing semantics will never work in your favor.

>> No.1257410

>>1257373

You can have your own system of logic, but then you can't apply it to existing knowledge because all of that is invalidated by being derived from a system of logic you don't ascribe to.

Don't get mad when we don't call your system logic, either.

>> No.1257415

>>1257392
Telling someone that they are wrong about something that they are not wrong about is a bad way to argue.
I'm outies.

>> No.1257422

>>1257415
That would be bad.

Good thing I'm telling someone who's wrong that they're wrong instead. Additionally you're a demonstrated equivocator, but have a nice sleep anyway.